Talk:Danny Nightingale (British Army soldier)

Nightingale's defence
Should we include the fact the Nightingale suffered extensive brain trauma and memory loss following his charity walk? His defence relied upon the fact he forgot to hand over the pistol and ammo as a regimental trophy due to memory loss as a result of his injuries. Twobells (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

agenda
An editor deleted the fact that Nightingale's defence concluded there was a concerted attack on the soldier resorting from political pressure from within the army to make an example of him. There are numerous cites of this in the British media which were included along with questions asked in the house by leading government ministers and the recorded fact that Nightingale was pursued by the prosecution even after he won his appeal, all of which is evidenced publicly so why an editor would delete the sentence is unclear, they suggested that the the cites do not include the substance of the defence yet they do. Wiki best practice is to discuss any deletion first and come to an agreement, not arbitrarily delete others work. Twobells (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Bullshit. I deleted this phrase: "however, Nightingale and his defence insist he was a victim of a political agenda within the armed forces, a position given credence following the numerous questions asked by members of the government in parliament and despite his conviction being quashed at the Court of Appeal, military prosecutors continued to pursue Sgt Nightingale." This was not stated in any of the three appended references, and is a clear cut case of WP:SYNTH on your part given your use of the words "a position given credence." None of the references said that the position was "given credence." Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Keri (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to use foul language, I had already removed the word 'credence' but you continued to scrap entire sentences, rewriting the entire section favouring the prosecution. I have never seen such a non neutral pov piece, do you work for the ALS? Because this article promotes the prosecution's version of events rather than a neutral version which is best wiki practice, I'll have to rewrite the lot now thanks a bunch.Twobells (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)